Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Abortion is murder. It is premeditated, murder.

 

[oze]

Yes, it is.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Much more violence against Pro-life people than against Pro-choice since the Supreme Court Leak on May 3rd: 135 Attacks on Pro-life people between the Supreme Court Leak on May 3rd and September 24th, 2022, Only 6 attacks were identified in the other direction​

Much more violence against Pro-life people than against Pro-choice since the Supreme Court Leak on May 3rd: 135 Attacks on Pro-life people between the Supreme Court Leak on May 3rd and September 24th, 2022, Only 6 attacks were identified in the other

Political violence is central to so much of the political debate in the US. Since a draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson overturning Roe v. Wade leaked in early …

crimeresearch.org

 

[JEBland]

Abortion lawsuits place federal drug authority in the crosshairs

Recent lawsuits challenging bans and restrictions on an abortion drug are invoking federal preemption authority, but legal experts aren’t sure how the courts will decide.

www.nationaljournal.com

With the last century of distorting the interstate commerce clause, I'm not sure what will happen (the rest of this post is what I would like to happen)

From a rudimentary viewpoint... If

1. The federal gov has the right to preempt state law with respect to interstate commerce,
2. Abortion is a state level issue wrt regulation/banning, and
3. A given abortion pill is an FDA-approved for the mother's safety

How the intersection of the above doesn't result in

1. A state can ban such a pill but that same state
2. Cannot stop a shipment of such pills from being transported through the state for extra-state commerce that is otherwise legal. (naively, this would be akin to how a standard capacity magazine may go through the Chicago post office)

Wouldn't the latter 1 & 2 be the intent of the interstate commerce clause and obey federalism?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Abortion lawsuits place federal drug authority in the crosshairs

Recent lawsuits challenging bans and restrictions on an abortion drug are invoking federal preemption authority, but legal experts aren’t sure how the courts will decide.

www.nationaljournal.com

With the last century of distorting the interstate commerce clause, I'm not sure what will happen (the rest of this post is what I would like to happen)

From a rudimentary viewpoint... If

1. The federal gov has the right to preempt state law with respect to interstate commerce,
2. Abortion is a state level issue wrt regulation/banning, and
3. A given abortion pill is an FDA-approved for the mother's safety

How the intersection of the above doesn't result in

1. A state can ban such a pill but that same state
2. Cannot stop a shipment of such pills from being transported through the state for extra-state commerce that is otherwise legal. (naively, this would be akin to how a standard capacity magazine may go through the Chicago post office)

Wouldn't the latter 1 & 2 be the intent of the interstate commerce clause and obey federalism?

I would think so. Adding a number 3 to the second group would also mean a state cannot prevent someone from traveling to another state to fill a prescription for an FDA-approved abortion pill (provided they consume the pills in the other state and do not bring the actual drugs back into the state where they are banned) and the state also cannot prevent the person from the leaving the state for that express purpose. The same would apply to abortion procedures.

 

[KLB]

Abortion lawsuits place federal drug authority in the crosshairs

Recent lawsuits challenging bans and restrictions on an abortion drug are invoking federal preemption authority, but legal experts aren’t sure how the courts will decide.

www.nationaljournal.com

With the last century of distorting the interstate commerce clause, I'm not sure what will happen (the rest of this post is what I would like to happen)

From a rudimentary viewpoint... If

1. The federal gov has the right to preempt state law with respect to interstate commerce,
2. Abortion is a state level issue wrt regulation/banning, and
3. A given abortion pill is an FDA-approved for the mother's safety

How the intersection of the above doesn't result in

1. A state can ban such a pill but that same state
2. Cannot stop a shipment of such pills from being transported through the state for extra-state commerce that is otherwise legal. (naively, this would be akin to how a standard capacity magazine may go through the Chicago post office)

Wouldn't the latter 1 & 2 be the intent of the interstate commerce clause and obey federalism?

Yep. Just like with guns today.

 

[JEBland]

I would think so. Adding a number 3 to the second group would also mean a state cannot prevent someone from traveling to another state to fill a prescription for an FDA-approved abortion pill (provided they consume the pills in the other state and do not bring the actual drugs back into the state where they are banned) and the state also cannot prevent the person from the leaving the state for that express purpose. The same would apply to abortion procedures.

The travel thing is where I get hung up a little, but I'm inclined to agree with you. The intent outside of the state, assuming the activities in the destination are legal, shouldn't itself make the traveling itself illegal.

Not accusing you of saying this but just to add: I imagine that a doctor in a state could be barred from prescribing such a pill to a resident or that an intrastate pharmacy could be prohibited from filling out that banned pill.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Not accusing you of saying this but just to add: I imagine that a doctor in a state could be barred from prescribing such a pill to a resident or that an intrastate pharmacy could be prohibited from filling out that banned pill.

Yes, I agree, the prescribing doctor and the pharmacy filling the prescription would both have to be in a state where the pill is legal.

One sticky point might be drugs that have multiple uses, such as methotrexate. It can be used to induce abortion, but it's also a chemotherapy drug used to treat multiple cancers and autoimmune disorders. An in-state pharmacy might be able to fill the prescription since they wouldn't necessarily know what it was prescribed for. An in-state doctor could still be barred from prescribing it for abortion though.

 

[bwframe]

Garland looks to hand off security duty for Supreme Court justices

Sen. Katie Britt unveiled training materials showing that marshals were discouraged from arresting protesters.

www.politico.com

 

[Shadow01]

Yes, I agree, the prescribing doctor and the pharmacy filling the prescription would both have to be in a state where the pill is legal.

One sticky point might be drugs that have multiple uses, such as methotrexate. It can be used to induce abortion, but it's also a chemotherapy drug used to treat multiple cancers and autoimmune disorders. An in-state pharmacy might be able to fill the prescription since they wouldn't necessarily know what it was prescribed for. An in-state doctor could still be barred from prescribing it for abortion though.

I can’t see too many reproductive doctors prescribing methotrexate for a patient with cancer or lupus. The reason would be obvious.

 

[TrueSeanamus]

Garland looks to hand off security duty for Supreme Court justices

Sen. Katie Britt unveiled training materials showing that marshals were discouraged from arresting protesters.

www.politico.com

I’m absolutely shocked. Now let’s get some people outside of the non biologist’s home, the wise Latina’s home, and the never-served-a-day-as-a-judge-before-joining-the-Supreme-Court’s-home and see how fast protesters heads get knocked and how many are arrested.

It’s all so tiresome.

 

[bwframe]

 

[jedi]

View attachment 272571

Let's see which bingo card square do you have?

Does not matter if video/audio 4k resolution existed of who and how it went down. Nothing would come of it.

 

[bwframe]

Let's see which bingo card square do you have?

Does not matter if video/audio 4k resolution existed of who and how it went down. Nothing would come of it.

View attachment 272575

Then we have to wait for the leaker's manifesto...

 

[BigRed]

I'll bet an "announcement" will be made any day now.

 

[Ingomike]

I suspect one of the leftists justices…

 

[KLB]

I suspect one of the leftists justices…

I would think it would be someone working for one of them. They wouldn't want to chance getting caught themselves

 

[Ingomike]

I would think it would be someone working for one of them. They wouldn't want to chance getting caught themselves

Did that someone working for them get a nod or an order or are they just freelancing?

 

[KLB]

Did that someone working for them get a nod or an order or are they just freelancing?

Plausible deniability

 

[KellyinAvon]

Justice Alito put it pretty clearly here:

"Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination," Alito said. "It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us."

Early on a newsie (can't remember which) pieced together a "not that many degrees of separation" between one of the wise Latina's Clerks and who ran the story (husband of clerk worked with the leak publisher or something.) I have to wonder about the investigation. What kind of resources were available to a very small force with a very specific purpose and (unlike other LE entities) reports to SCOTUS?

An investigation into the leak led by the Marshal of the Court failed to yield a suspect who was responsible for the leak.

Plus, the SCOTUS Marshal has some pretty significant responsibilities outside of what the title would suggest:

...the Court described her responsibilities as being the Court's "chief security officer, facilities administrator, and contracting executive, managing approximately 260 employees, including the Supreme Court Police Force."

Supreme Court Justice Alito says he has a 'pretty good idea' on who leaked Dobbs draft decision

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he has a “pretty good idea" on who leaked a draft version of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

www.foxnews.com

Gail Curley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org